Customer Town Hall Meeting II Information [Archive] - Tesla Motors Club

donauker

01-30-2008, 07:46 PM

Here are a few of the items discussed today:

The Roadster motor will not be liquid cooled; it will basically be the current motor with enhanced air cooling (better air flow, fins, etc). The White Star will have a liquid cooled motor.

The new “transmission” actually just a reduction gearbox will have a 8.27:1 ratio which puts it between first gear at 14.3:1 and second gear at 7.4:1 on the 2 speed transmission, albeit rather close to second.

The motor top speed will move up to 14,000 rpm or possibly even higher for a top speed of at least 120 mph or greater.

A new improved PEM will provide more output current to the motor to increase torque output as well as provide full torque output to a slightly higher rpm range. Modeling & some test indicate that they will be able to maintain a 0 to 60 time of 4 seconds (no one was saying under 4 seconds anymore). The difference will be that 0 to 30 will be slower but 30 to 60 will be much quicker. This is due to the new setup maintaining full torque through 60 mph while with the old first gear torque started to fall off past 30 mph due to the higher motor rpm.

Additionally they reiterated that Whitestar development is proceeding and they plan on having a static model to show in the second quarter.

Yanquetino

01-30-2008, 08:00 PM

Thanks, Donauker, for the info. Did the motor discussion occupy the entire meeting? Nothing else came up? Hard to imagine.

I must be missing something, but I don't understand why they would even bother trying to put a water-cooled motor in the Whitestar. It is supposed to be a sedan, not a super sports car like the Roadster. If it could hit 60 in, say, less than 8 seconds, and topped out at 100 mph, most drivers would be happy --and you wouldn't need any cooling. Why add all the extra weight and complication to the design? I say... keep it simple... and the cost down.

donauker

01-30-2008, 08:13 PM

stopcrazypp

01-30-2008, 08:45 PM

Based on what I've seen here and at other blogs, this town hall meeting II basically confirmed that the roadster will not be liquid cool, but instead have better air cooling. I suppose it makes sense, as it would probably cost lots of money to switch to a liquid cooled setup this late in the game. What other things were discussed? I know a few of you went to the meeting. Thanks.

TEG

01-30-2008, 11:24 PM

Based on what I've seen here and at other blogs, this town hall meeting II basically confirmed that the roadster will not be liquid cool, but instead have better air cooling.

This article (http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/28/tesla-considering-a-track-ready-version-of-the-roadster/) says: "Tesla is working on a liquid-cooled version"
So, some may have thought the "standard" production version would get water cooling, but it sounds like it is just an idea for a track special, and the Town Hall meeting clarifies it.

tonybelding

01-31-2008, 01:29 AM

Here's a nice summary:

Tom Saxton (http://web.mac.com/tomsax/Tom_Saxtons_Occasional_Blog/Blog/Entries/2008/1/30_Tesla_Owners_-_Town_Hall_Meeting.html)

A small but interesting point to me was that Tesla still haven't made a firm decision about when or *where* the WhiteStar will be made. So, it would seem the whole New Mexico deal may be in danger of evaporating.

stopcrazypp

01-31-2008, 01:43 AM

This article (http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/28/tesla-considering-a-track-ready-version-of-the-roadster/) says: "Tesla is working on a liquid-cooled version"
So, some may have thought the "standard" production version would get water cooling, but it sounds like it is just an idea for a track special, and the Town Hall meeting clarifies it.

Yes, I was confused on that point too, as I think Sam from Autobloggreen originally said he was told by Tesla that the standard Roadster would be liquid cooled (he has since corrected to say that he confirmed that there would be more power put through the PEM requiring aggressive cooling and that "That means it will likely need to be liquid cooled." So it seems he is only inferring liquid cooling is what would be used).

BlackbirdHighway (a member here on Tesla Motors Club) commented: "Another correction for a previous Tesla article on this site:

The new plan is NOT to have a liquid cooled motor in the Roadster, but instead to beef up the air cooling, as well as an improved power electronics module (PEM). The new PEM not only provides more juice to the motor, but is also slightly more efficient as well. "

Here's the link to the article: Don't believe everything you read out there, Tesla production date has not slipped again - AutoblogGreen (http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/01/30/dont-believe-everything-you-read-out-there-tesla-production-da/#comments)

So I guess it's just some confusion that the Town Hall Meeting II cleared up. Sam himself wrote an article on the track version you mentioned here: Revisiting the Tesla Roadster as a track car: it could happen - AutoblogGreen (http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/01/28/revisiting-the-tesla-roadster-as-a-track-car-it-could-happen/)

I think the autoblog article you have is basically the same one, except reposted on autoblog.

So this meeting basically is another update on what they have planned on the roadster and a reaffirmation that Whitestar development is continuing along. Did they mention how the 2 transmission suppliers fared; is it because they have completely failed that they went with this plan, or did they go with this plan because they thought it was just a better idea? That's something I have been wondering. Also, is this plan set in stone, meaning have they ditched their 2 transmission suppliers, or are they still keeping options open?

siry

01-31-2008, 06:58 AM

a little bit of clarification - we are no longer simply relying (hoping) that a transmission supplier will deliver us a gearbox. We have been burned twice by this approach and can't put our fate in the hands of a supplier, so we are relying a lot more heavily on our internal powertrain team and other internal resources for development, sourcing and manufacturing of the gearbox. In the town hall meeting, JB told everyone that the design was complete and we were already into prototyping, so this direction was set shortly after the last town hall - so what that means is that we have indeed abandoned the 2-speed design, at least for 2008. It won't make any sense to put big resources behind a 2-speed at this point, except for a few interesting niche projects we might do down the line. Supplementing our internal team is a team from Ricardo Engineering, who have a great deal of experience on high end, demanding gearboxes such as those that were developed for the Bugatti Veyron and the Ford GT. This gives us the added measure of confidence that our design will be sound.

As for Whitestar, Elon firmly stated the we are committed to WhiteStar, that we are well along on the powertrain development, and will be revealing a styling car (non-operational) in the 2nd quarter. Details on our manufacturing plan will be clearer soon, but Elon mentioned in the meeting that we have been pre-qualified on a DOE loan guarantee that could enable us to debt finance the WhiteStar. We were one of a handful of companies considered for this loan guarantee program.

Much much more was shared over the 90 minutes plus of &A and we will post the audio very soon on our website.

tonybelding

01-31-2008, 07:45 AM

we are no longer simply relying (hoping) that a transmission supplier will deliver us a gearbox. We have been burned twice by this approach and can't put our fate in the hands of a supplier, so we are relying a lot more heavily on our internal powertrain team and other internal resources for development, sourcing and manufacturing of the gearbox.

If you want something done right. . .

01-31-2008, 08:52 AM

It's always good to get information directly from the source. Nice work on getting the DOE pre-qualification. Would be curious to know what other (if any) car companies have been considered.

2nd quarter can be as late as June 30 :eek: -OR- April 1 :biggrin:

Yanquetino

01-31-2008, 11:06 AM

Liquid cooling is not needed for short duration peak acceleration it is needed for longer duration high load. The Whitstar will be a much larger & heavier vehicle. Think 4 or 5 passengers and bags climbing long grades.

Uh... as usual, I must be missing something. Doesn't the RAV4-EV have seating for 4 or 5 passengers, plus bags? I haven't heard of an instance in which their motors have burned up because they lack a water-cooling system, and those lucky drivers have been using them for several years and thousands of miles now. (I sure wish Toyota would simply resurrect that assembly line and install lithium-ion batteries in them. Folks would be lined up to buy them. Duh!)

It might be too early to tell yet, but I haven't heard of a motor overheating in AC Propulsion's eBox either, and it most certainly boasts plenty of seating and room for luggage.

So... I still don't understand why the Whitestar would need anything different. :confused:

Kardax

01-31-2008, 11:21 AM

Uh... as usual, I must be missing something. Doesn't the RAV4-EV have seating for 4 or 5 passengers, plus bags? I haven't heard of an instance in which their motors have burned up because they lack a water-cooling system, and those lucky drivers have been using them for several years and thousands of miles now. (I sure wish Toyota would simply resurrect that assembly line and install lithium-ion batteries in them. Folks would be lined up to buy them. Duh!)

It might be too early to tell yet, but I haven't heard of a motor overheating in AC Propulsion's eBox either, and it most certainly boasts plenty of seating and room for luggage.

So... I still don't understand why the Whitestar would need anything different. :confused:
The RAV4 EV does 0 to 60 in like 20 seconds, due to its weak 67ish HP motor. I doubt a fully-loaded RAV4 EV could climb a hill at highway speeds. The limited power output also limits the amount of heat produced, so burning up isn't really a risk.

Presumably Tesla is aiming somewhat higher for their WhiteStar performance.

-Ryan

Yanquetino

01-31-2008, 11:56 AM

The RAV4 EV does 0 to 60 in like 20 seconds, due to its weak 67ish HP motor. I doubt a fully-loaded RAV4 EV could climb a hill at highway speeds. The limited power output also limits the amount of heat produced, so burning up isn't really a risk.

Presumably Tesla is aiming somewhat higher for their WhiteStar performance.

-Ryan

That might be true. Just don't know. Hey... if there are any RAV4-EV owners out there, speak up! Can you climb a hill at highway speed in it?

And if not... let's not forget that the RAV4-EV was really only a conversion, i.e., with a frame and body as heavy as the ICE model. Couldn't a vehicle designed from the ground up as an EV, with a lighter aluminum frame, carbon fiber body, and better aerodynamics produce acceptable performance without the need of a radiator? That is how I thought the Whitestar would be "aiming somewhat higher."

Come to think of it, if anybody here actually knows how AC Propulsion's eBox is doing when it comes to motor heat, speak up as well! I'd be very interested to know. It is certainly a different animal than the RAV4-EV, since it boasts:

Curb weight: 2970 lbs.
AC induction motor: 120 kW peak, 50 kW continuous
0-60 mph: 7 seconds
Top speed: 95 mph
Range: 120–150 miles
Redline: 13,000 rpm

That sounds pretty good to me! Maybe the range is more modest, but then again I don't think that a radiator will improve that --only more or better batteries.

TedK

01-31-2008, 12:24 PM

On a side note, I heard at least 2 people ask the same basic question.........When will owners be offered an opportunity to invest in Tesla the company? Presumably at pre-IPO price levels. Elon said he would ask the board and would support it if the board did. I think its entirely fitting that the people who had early faith and plunked down some serious money(and are waiting patiently) were allowed the opportunity.

donauker

01-31-2008, 12:49 PM

AC induction motor: 120 kW peak, 50 kW continuous

This is exactly the reason they would liquid cool the motor. They do not want this very low continuous power rating.

There are indications that the new motor is more powerful then the current Roadster motor, but using old Roadster numbers it is not hard to see the problem. At peak net power of 185 KW the specs tell us the the motor is 80% efficient. Therefore we need 231.25 KW input x 80% = 185 KW output. This means that 231.25 KW power input - 185 KW power output = 46.25 KW heat generated due to loss. This is over 11 times the heat output of the Roadster cabin heater!

If we assume the higher 90% efficiency at about half power we can determine what the heat generated will be :

102 KW input X 90% = 91.8 KW output
102 KW input - 91.8 KW output = 10.2 KW Heat, still 2.5 times max cabin heat.

If you think this loss is bad try the numbers with a 20% ICE efficiency.

Additionally you may want to do some research into how an AC induction motor works and how this will tend to build up heat in the rotor which is not the kind of item that is easy to put a lot of heat dissipating fins on.

AGR

01-31-2008, 02:20 PM

Its positive to see Tesla resolve the entire transmission issue in a simple elegant fashion....no transmission and tweaking the motor a bit.

From the early customer roadtests one of the tester who tried to emulate his Porsche probably came close top overheating the motor, its positive to see the motor cooling improved.

Ricardo is an English company that has been around for many years, and does a lot of behind the scenes work for a lot of manufacturers.

Water cooling at this stage is merely an "intellectual discussion" which will not be implemented any time soon on the roadster.

These guys are moving along...

TEG

01-31-2008, 02:33 PM

...This means that 231.25 KW power input - 185 KW power output = 46.25 KW heat generated due to loss. This is over 11 times the heat output of the Roadster cabin heater!

Umm, Hello!, how about we duct the motor heat output and use it to prime the cabin heat? ICE cars use waste engine heat to heat the cabin, so why not save the traction pack charge and recapture "waste heat". Does the current design just send the eMotor heat into the atmosphere without recapture?

TEG

01-31-2008, 02:38 PM

siry

01-31-2008, 06:17 PM

Full audio should be available shortly on the Tesla Website

Yanquetino

01-31-2008, 06:39 PM

This is exactly the reason they would liquid cool the motor. They do not want this very low continuous power rating.

Uh... why not? 0-60 in 7 seconds, and top speed of 95 mph isn't good enough for an EV sedan? Again, that seems pretty good to me! :rolleyes:

I guess I still don't get it. If AC Propulsion can achieve that level of performance with a conversion, surely a dedicated EV can do even better with a similar motor. Why add more weight and complication with a radiator --and thus a higher price?

By the way, your claim piqued my curiosity, so I asked an RAV4-EV owner, Patricia Lakinsmith, about hill climbing, and this is what she answered:

You are right - the RAV 4 EV would have no trouble with that. In fact, I live in the mountains near the Northern California coast, and have to climb 1800' to get home each night. Before leasing the car I took a friend and the Toyota sales guy (big guy) with me up that route on a test drive, and no problem. My husband drives a Honda Insight, and *that* one seems to struggle, but not the amazing RAV 4 EV.

Of course, Patty's is only one testimony, so if there are other RAV4-EV owners lurking around here in the forum, please add your $.02 worth too, okay?

TEG

01-31-2008, 07:12 PM

Although the RAV4-EV only makes 67hp, it has 190Nm of torque (approximately 140 lb./ft.) from 0-1,500 rpm. That is a reasonable amount of torque to get you going off the line. So if you are going up hill and have to stop and start a lot it feels peppy enough. I am not so sure about uphill high speed freeway cruising.

donauker

01-31-2008, 08:06 PM

Uh... why not? 0-60 in 7 seconds, and top speed of 95 mph isn't good enough for an EV sedan? Again, that seems pretty good to me!

Uh .. somehow I have the feeling that the Whitstar is not being designed as a competitor to the eBox. From what I heard it is to be a luxury sedan something on the scale of a BMW 7 series. This makes it a bit heavier then the Scion donor for the eBox. Also both specs you keep quoting only deal with peak power not continuous power. I don't think Tesla would want to have their name on a rather large luxury sedan that can only maintain 67 hp (50 KW) continuous power.

By the way I am not sure why you consider this a major weight & complexity issue. They already have a liquid cooled battery, they only need to scale the system up a bit to include the motor. The difficult part as far as the Roadster is concerned is that it wasn't initially designed with this in mind and it is very late in the game for this type of change.

Yanquetino

01-31-2008, 09:22 PM

I wasn't trying to suggest that the eBox mini-van is a competitor to the Whitestar sedan. They are indeed different fruits. I was simply trying to point out that EVs with respectable performances do not necessarily need radiators.

If --as you say-- they want to create an EV competitor for the BMW 7 series, well... they've got their work cut out for them! And it will take a lot more than a radiator. That sedan weighs nearly 4500 lbs., boasts 360 hp, has a drag coefficient of .29, does 0-60 in 5.8 seconds, and has a top speed of 150 mph. Price? Between $75,800 and $122,600, sans accessories and taxes --depending upon the model.

You know what? If that is the performance and price they are using as a yardstick for the Whitestar... I think I'll forego that "luxury" and wait for the Mitsubishi iMiEV or the Subaru G4e, thanks!

stopcrazypp

01-31-2008, 10:11 PM

If --as you say-- they want to create an EV competitor for the BMW 7 series, well... they've got their work cut out for them! And it will take a lot more than a radiator. That sedan weighs nearly 4500 lbs., boasts 360 hp, has a drag coefficient of .29, does 0-60 in 5.8 seconds, and has a top speed of 150 mph. Price? Between $75,800 and $122,600, sans accessories and taxes --depending upon the model.

I remember very clearly that Tesla stated the Whitestar will be competition for the BMW 5 series. This makes sense as they wanted to price the Whitestar at around $50-60k, right around where the 5 series is priced. Where did you get info that they will challenge the 7 series?! Was this just announced at this town hall meeting?

As for your questions about liquid cooling I can give a simple analysis. Judging by the 1000lb battery pack in the current roadster, I would say the weight of the whitestar will be closest to the V8 550i and V10 M5 both at ~4000lbs, maybe even more. The whitestar will likely compete with the 550i as it's priced less than $60k while the M5 is priced at $80k. 0-60 in the 550i is 5.5secs. As it's going to be priced nearer the 550i, I would doubt Tesla could include as much weight reduction as the Roadster or the M5 (which is around the same weight as the 550i despite it's V10). 4000lbs minus 2700lbs of the Tesla Roadster means the Whitestar will be at least 1300lbs heavier than the roadster. Right now even just driving the Roadster there were cases of overheating when driven very hard. If the Whitestar is to perform 0-60 in 5.5 secs it would need to do so carrying 1300lbs more weight and possibility of carrying 4-5 passengers. If driven hard you can see that there is still big chance of overheating like in the Roadster. You are right that in most cases the liquid cooling is not really needed, but seeing as Tesla is planning to do this with one gear also, I could see where liquid cooling might be needed, esp if they are using around the same motor and just upping the voltage to increase the power. It shouldn't cost too much more as even the Th!nk EV had a liquid cooled 3-phase AC induction motor.

Michael

02-01-2008, 04:03 AM

I remember reading recently that M. Bricklins Visionary Vehicles project expects to utilize an electric motor which produces almost no excess heat. Although he didn't go into details regarding the motor, I would wonder whether it might behove Tesla to check out the possibility of adopting an externally manufactured motor.

WarpedOne

02-01-2008, 04:58 AM

TEG:

Umm, Hello!, how about we duct the motor heat output and use it to prime the cabin heat? ICE cars use waste engine heat to heat the cabin, so why not save the traction pack charge and recapture "waste heat". Does the current design just send the eMotor heat into the atmosphere without recapture?

In case you are not being sarcastic, here is an answer.

"Trouble" is, that "waste heat" is being generated "only" when the motor is rotating i.e. the car is moving. The faster it moves, the more power it is using and more waste heat is being generated. When you stop, no waste heat alas no heat for you. When you are going downhill with no power to the motor - no heat for you.
In the morning, when you sit into your cold car and slowly back off out of your garage - sorry, no heat for you.

Additionaly, The Roadster has and will have aircooled motor. Air keeps very low amounts of heat so you cannot store warm air on-board for occasions when you'll need it. So yes, the waste heat is sent into the athmosphere. As much and as quick as possible to keep the motor as cold as possible. The eMotor does not need to warm up as ICEs do, to function properly. Actually the colder it is, better it will function (more efficient).

As for WhiteStar if indeed it gets liquid cooling I guess they will use that trapped heat for heating the cabin just as in an ordinary ICE car. Additional electric heater will probably be added for faster cabin heat-ups.

Michael:

... almost no excess heat ... That means very low power and very slow response and very low torque and very low max rpm. Do you want 100 or 1 kW car? I'd say that quote is pure marketing b*llsh*t or something was lost in translation.

80% - 90% efficiency is very darn close to best possible that still makes sense. If we decrease losses tenfold, we only increase efficiency by 10%. Are you sure its worth it?

donauker

02-01-2008, 06:37 AM

If --as you say-- they want to create an EV competitor for the BMW 7 series, well... they've got their work cut out for them!

I agree calling it a 7 series competitor may be a bit of a stretch, but we do know that it has been stated to be in the BMW class and we do have this Elon quote from another thread.

It will have 'more interior room and much more cargo space than the 5 series BMW' (The current BMW has 14cubic feet of trunk space.) , will be able to accommodate 3 child seats (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=global_warm&id=5399716)

I am not all that familiar with BMW sedans so I am not sure were that leaves it as far as size goes.

My whole point is that with the roadster they started with the smallest lightest sports car they could find and put a carbon fiber body on it! With this they ran into conditions that would force them to reduce motor power to maintain a safe motor temperature. Also remember it is not a few short peak power runs that cause a heat problem, it is sustained high power operation which is why you see the much lower continuous power rating in your previous example.

Now take a car that is likely a bit larger then the BMW 5 series (and doesn't use carbon fiber) we know that it will be much heavier then the Roadster. You may not have a problem if it can only maintain 50 - 55 mph over some interstate mountain pass but many people that spend from 60 to 70 K for a luxury sedan will expect it to be able to maintain 70 to 80 mph.

graham

02-01-2008, 07:35 AM

By the way, your claim piqued my curiosity, so I asked an RAV4-EV owner, Patricia Lakinsmith, about hill climbing, and this is what she answered:

You are right - the RAV 4 EV would have no trouble with that. In fact, I live in the mountains near the Northern California coast, and have to climb 1800' to get home each night

I am assuming that this is the RAV 4 EV I occasionally pass on highway 17 coming home from work over the Santa Cruz mountains (as it has an 1800' climb). If this is indeed the one, keep in mind that highway 17 has a 50 MPH speed limit which may or may not fall into the category of "highway speeds" for some people. This is not to say that the RAV4 EV may not be able to go 65 or 70 on the same hill, I don't know. The RAV 4 EV s a pretty amazing car.

Yanquetino

02-01-2008, 08:18 AM

Graham: I'll bet that is Patty's RAV4-EV that you see when coming home from work, as she does commute on highway 17. Since Toyota only sold 328 of them, the chances of it belonging to somebody else are very slim indeed.

Thanks for the clarification on the speed limit up there. Since it is posted at 50, I would imagine that most folks (you included) drive the straight stretches at close to 60. :rolleyes:

That's actually a higher speed limit than I imagined for a mountain road. I'm pretty impressed with what the RAV4-EV can handle with its 67 hp motor. I sure wish that Toyota would turn the lights back on in the factory and resurrect those cars with lithium ion. :frown:

TEG

02-01-2008, 08:35 AM

Regarding waste motor heat to the cabin - yes I know it wouldn't be available except when doing hard acceleration. It still seems like you shouldn't waste it since it might be a cold day and you could be trying to run the interior heater at the same time. I wasn't being sarcastic, and I wasn't suggesting that it would be the only source of heat. Just a source of pre-heated air that would sometimes be available to supplement the normal heater.

Regarding Whitestar target & size - I recall them saying it was intended to be a 5 series competitor, then later it would have a width closer to a 7 series. I posted a few times that (personally) I think that is so wide to be inconvenient, so I hope they don't make it that wide. My guess is that they have a body design worked out already, so suggestions or comments now might be too late for any consideration.

I was thinking of moving the RAV4 comments out of this topic, but it is too intertwined. If people want to keep talking about Rav4EV we might want to start a new topic out of the news section.

donauker

02-01-2008, 09:01 AM

Another thing to keep in mind is that the Rav4EV motor cooling requirements have absolutely no relevance to the motor cooling requirements of the Roadster or Whitestar. The Rav4EV has a Permanent Magnet motor and not an AC Induction motor.

WarpedOne

02-01-2008, 01:52 PM

Town Hall Meeting II recording is posted at Tesla's site.

They mentioned the current battery pack is capable of 1C charging i.e. it is possible to fully charge it in one hour. I am not really supprised about that as every cellphone or laptop batteries are capable of that also. The limiting factor is charging equipment and typical home installation limitations. How many people do have 80kW home grid connection? Anyone? No one? But they (TM) are thinking of creating special highpower charger to be installed in more frequent places like hotels where you would stop for a lunch and have your car quickcharged also. They mentioned it would probably be special DC highvoltage charger that would bypass the PEM and go directly into the batteries. I guess, this will come with Whitestar.

They mentioned you could fully charge the batteries with regen faster than if you'd plug it in. But they wouldn't recomend it :D

On the other news, Elon should get his car today.

Sub 4 second 0-60 time will still possible with new gearbox but they are targeting 4 second time in nonideal conditions. Top spead should stay around 125mph. Max rpm will be 14.000 or higher, eMotor will be aircooled. EPA range should increase slightly.

mt2

02-01-2008, 10:42 PM

How many people do have 80kW home grid connection? Anyone? No one?Bueller?... Bueller?... Bueller?

They mentioned you could fully charge the batteries with regen faster than if you'd plug it in. But they wouldn't recomend it :DWhile they were laughing at the idea of recharging the car by having it towed home, I know I heard someone (Zak?) say, "It works. We've tried it."

Sub 4 second 0-60 time will still possible with new gearbox but they are targeting 4 second time in nonideal conditions.This is an important distinction that they stressed for everyone hoping for < 4 / 0-60 - Four seconds is and has been the target. But the official time is like the official mileage; your results may vary. They need an acceleration they can publish and hold to, and that is four seconds. No passenger and clean dry pavement etc should easily accelerate to 60 in less than four.

TEG

02-01-2008, 10:59 PM

Yeah... All numbers are tentative, and subject to change, but estimates are something like:
0-60 in 4 (as was originally planned)
1/4 mile in maybe 12 (improvement over what the old 2 speed would do)
~230 mile EPA range (slight improvement)
~120+ MPH max (slight reduction)

Plans to just remove the "1" slot on the shift lever so you have R<->N<->D
The motor is always geared to the wheels. The shifter just sends commands to the PEM to control torque requests.
Park lock is automatic when you remove the key.

...No provision for "L" mode with enhanced regen??? ...

They "lucked out" and got a new type of IGBT for the PEM that can let them deliver more low end torque. The also think that some improved air cooling in the eMotor will let them rev up to 14,000 RPMs now. Lets hope that all their simulations and prototyping sails into production without any glitches.

TEG

02-01-2008, 11:02 PM

While they were laughing at the idea of recharging the car by having it towed home, I know I heard someone (Zak?) say, "It works. We've tried it."

It is odd for me listening to these because they bring up ideas that we talked about on the Tesla blogs long ago. I kept requesting that they consider a feature to allow regen while towing the roadster behind an RV. Maybe they remember that discussion and this was just a subtle confirmation that it is possible without actually recommending or endorsing the practice?

vfx

02-02-2008, 02:33 PM

Obscure notes and questions from the Meeting audio.

Won't a higher reving motor -even a cooled one- wear out faster?

Sounds like the car will go just as fast in reverse. Nice for Bond to use in his next flick.

The new igbt is not in Tesla's usual "commodity" parameter

The biggest bummer in the meeting was the loss of real world acceleration from a standstill.

2 of the Red Hot Chilli Peppers have bought the Roadster

Elon confirms the positive return on investment for the 600 buyers of a Roadster.

Zeev's comment to a buyer about sharing the costs was bit rude. At least we know Martin has had 100K of his own money sitting in Tesla's bank until now. Has Zeev?